Do you think a governemnt licence would have prevented this mistake?
Absolutely not, integrity and inspectors not worried about pi$$ing off agents would help though.
Government license can not stop inspectors from performing incompetent home inspections just like the government gun registry has not stopped
illegal guns in our society, licensing drivers does not prevent poor driving skills/drunkenness etc.
Licensing can give a false impression to society that all licensed home inspectors will do a perfect inspection and find all defects with a home, sometimes this can backfire on consumer expectations of us the home inspectors.
Common sense and to follow a set Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics helps one to conduct a proper methodical home inspection can help.
Still, while I agree that licensing on its own is not a guarantee of competence, it does act as a filter and helps to raise the bar. Most professional associations have some form of internal quality control system and in the case of Canada, the Test Inspection and Peer Review (TIPR), part of the National Certification Program, seems to be the closest thing to that.
As an ex (private) pilot, I remember that if you had not flown for over 30 days, there was* no question* on how good you were: a check ride was an obligation before you took the controls in hand!
All Inspection Associations have Codes of Ethics and/or Practice. They perhaps should equip themselves with some form of internal “inspect the inspector” procedure. This could help improve the breed and raise the bar.
One thing for sure we don’t need this!
Would regs have prevented this anyway?
How would an inspector have found this if in fact there was a snow storm?
Not including the obvious stains and apparent mold.
Reschedule the inspection?
If the home was inspected during a snowstorm or was snow covered as the HI owner claims, how would you have found the bad shingles?
Great post, Gilles!!
I think the point was Brian, he predicted that they should last 10 years. That can’t be determined either under the snow even with a license.
To the first question: NO!!!
“Common sense and to follow a set Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics helps one to conduct a proper methodical home inspection can help.” Allen Cavdek.
“integrity and inspectors not worried about pi$$ing off agents would help though.” Charles Boyd.
I think that like point #1, the Gov. should only require that there be a SOP and Code of Ethics. Then along the thought of point #2 I think there also should be a regulation against Realtors referring HI. I believe there is a potential or inherent conflict of interest when an inspector markets realtors for referrals or when a realtor recommends an HI to a potential homebuyer. Specially when the realtor offers “their” short list of preferred HI to a customer.
Then the customer must be educated, carefully explaining to them that every mechanical device in the house has the potential to stop working the day after closing.(that is what home warranties are all about) That all roofs and basements will leak even if the roof and basement on this house are not leaking on the day of the inspection. Communication is the most important aspect of our job, firmly and clearly establishing the customer’s expectations.
Then finally, if we all did inspections “a la Mike Holmes” (which we don’t), ;/ we would kill almost every deal.
Every one has to know there’s a minimum requirement and maximum expection in all inspections.
A really big dose of commom sense all around is needed.
This got me thinking. Why can’t we as an association, offer our own type of home warranties as a extra service to our customers?
Not good, consumers are already being directed to thinking our E&O insurance is a warranty.
Besides some people believe that the home warranty makes the home inspector an unnecessary part of the real estate transaction.
Or perhaps the home warranty company could hold the home inspector accountable, like any other consumer for their losses! I have heard from realtors of that happening.
OK… I see that… Thanks gentlemen…
Some additional info
This company is not a member of InterNACHI in Alberta.
I do not know for sure but I do not think he is a member of CAHPI either because he has not posted any logos on his site.
He checked off three boxes all saying that the risk was low.
When confronted by the TV crew he came up with the snow excuse.
Makes me wonder if there was any snow and if there was snow, why did he tick off three boxes saying the roof was at low risk for repairs?
Another reason why I hate tick and scratch reports; have never used and never will I use this type report. Too damn easy to make mistakes and whats to stop the client from ticking the box to make you look bad.
IMHO Tick & scratch should be banned.
Sorry Vern I disagree I use the Carson Dunlop system and love it .
I see many who use the eletronic methods not doing too well .
We have a NACHI/ASHI member who posted his results from 42 court cases .
He was an expert witness and 39 used the eltronic and 3 used the Check list .
I like the odds of about 26 for electronic and 1 for the check list .
Works for me no court cases … Roy
I agreed with Roy.
I have found only three Alberta lawsuits where the HI had to pay damages. All three used the Tick and scrach. One of the payouts was ordered because the comments were not in the report and the comment was misleading. The judge ordered a $38,000.00 payment from the HI to the client.
Interesting can you direct us to this Info and the court cases . I would love more information Thanks … Roy
Go to http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Advanced%20Search&searchPage=eliisa/advancedSearch.vm&text=home%20inspector&id=&startDate=&endDate=&jurisdiction=ca&jurisdiction=bc&jurisdiction=ab&jurisdiction=sk&jurisdiction=mb&jurisdiction=on&jurisdiction=qc&jurisdiction=nb&jurisdiction=ns&jurisdiction=pe&jurisdiction=nl&jurisdiction=yk&jurisdiction=nt&jurisdiction=nu&legislation=none&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=none
and search for home inspection and the province you want to search in this case Alberta.
You will get the transcript of the whole court case.
Search for Docket 0103 100710103 10071 if you want to read the case I’m referring to.